putin. mike memoli, thank you very much for your reporting. ambassador, thank you for staying with us and your analysis throughout the hour. certainly appreciate your insights. that wraps up the hour for me. i'll see you right back here tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern on what is expected to be yet another busy day. "deadline white house" with nicole wallace starts right now. hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. just moments ago, president biden in a press conference at the g7 summit following a packed day of meetings with world leaders. president biden just now defending his decision to hold a summit meeting with russian president vladimir putin saying this, quote, every world leader from here -- from nato thanked me for meeting with putin. he affirmed repeatedly the united states commitment to nato's article five defense agreement, that an attack on one member is an attack on all. in doing so, president biden

inviting a clear and stark contrast with the posture of his predecessor, who was famously resistance to article five. here was president biden just a few moments ago. >> the u.s. commitment to article five, the nato treaty, is rock solid and unshakable. it's a sacred commitment. nato -- nato stands together, that's how we met every other threat in the past. it's our greatest strength as we meet our challenges of the future, and there are many. and everyone -- everyone in that room today understood the shared appreciation, quite frankly, that america is back. >> president biden today also addressing news on the republican party back at home, calling it disappointing that so many republicans have been unwilling to advance an investigation into the january 6th insurrection. but among our allies who stood alongside president biden today,

relief was palpable. president biden ushering in the end of the trump era of american isolationism and reasserting u.s. leadership on the world stage. "new york times" reports, quote, the difference in tone was indeed striking. the last time the group of seven met in person in canada in 2018, its final communique never mentioned china. and the u.s. dissented from all the commitments to confront the climate crisis. then mr. trump withdrew american support from the gathering's final statement. compare that to what's happened on president biden's watch. president biden pushing for and receiving the g7 countries commitment to taking a tougher public stand on china. any conversation on contrast must include what we're seeing from our own eyes. the nato family photo, socially distanced, of course, but orderly. some might say normal, even boring. it stands out against the shoving match as trump elbowed

his way to the front of the pack of world leaders. all this leading to what may represent the greatest difference of all, a summit with vladimir putin on wednesday. let's start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. we're joined by michael mcball. he's in geneva today. and former democratic senator claire mccaskill is here. both lucky for us, msnbc contributors. i saw your tweet, ambassador, saying you have a suit on for the first time and i stumbled as i read where you are. but first, your reaction to the press conference and everything you've seen. >> ah, so far, so good. i think it's the right way to move into this main event of the week. first, the g7 statement, now the nato communique. i confess i haven't read it all yet, 45 pages, but the fact they have a communique is a great

achievement. he met with the three baltic leaders, i think that was important. because he hears them. he hears what the russia threat means to them. that will get him in the right frame of mind when he meets putin here in geneva later this week. >> ambassador mcfaul, it was such a stunning, even for the ex-president, it was stunning when he refused to assert america's commitment to article five. i remember some of his traveling security folks calling this, oh, we're going to do it at the next stop, i believe it eventually came out in the reporting from the trip that h.r. mcmaster and others had to force him to sort of begrudgingly make that commitment. why was that so important from president biden today? >> because it's the bed rom of the nato alliance. article five is everything. nato is a defensive alliance, right? it's to prevent an attack on any

of the country's in the nato alliance. and trump wouldn't say it, just like you said. and, you know, nicolle, i've been thinking about it the last couple of days. i think we forgot how crazy things got under president trump. and as we now see what is normal, and as you just said, maybe even boring, the contrast is really striking, but it's very important. because without that kind of continuity and credible commitment to the nato alliance, the alliance means nothing. >> you know, i want to ask you one more thing, ambassador mcfaul, about what we just heard. anne gearen using her question to address something, i've asked you about this and other national security folks, about the anxiety among our allies that the disgraced ex-president could return to power ore someone who seeps the world and our allies the way he did. he gave a pretty honest and sober response. i imagine that is the same honest and sober response he's

giving in private to our allies, but what do you hear about these concerns that america could just be in sort of an intermission from the crazy? >> well, it could be. we don't know. and i don't pretend that i know the future. but it equally could be true that that was the aberration, that those four years of the trump era was something different, even for the republican party, i don't need to remind you. and i think there's a careful balance there. i think the president wants to say, we don't know what the long-term trajectory is, but he also needs to speak with confidence that the united states is back, as he did today, and that in the long-term, we've had these other bits and times where people were uncertain about us, think about the late 1960s, early '70s, where there was doubt about america's leadership. i think the president needs to demonstrate strength and speak with conviction and he did that today. i thought it was a very good

press conference. >> i want to bring you in on this, claire, we're going to come back to the topic of vladimir putin. claire, your reactions to sort of just this sweep of -- and i think it makes it sound like less to call it norm am. a return to normalcy was not preordained for this country. it is a big deal here at home, probably an even bigger deal at a nato summit, where some of trump's closest allies, john bolton writes in his memoir that trump would have sought to abandon that alliance, had he been re-elected. >> history has taught us really one very important lesson, and that is, we are safer when the good guys stick together. and donald trump didn't get that part. he didn't get that part of national security, that having friends that can count on you is really important in a world full of dangerous hot spots and full of people like the north korean leader and the chinese and, in

fact, russia, the china government. i shouldn't say the chinese, the government of china. so, i think this nato sum milt was really important for two big takeaways. one, that he clearly said, i'm with you. and america is with you and democracies are going to stick together. and the second thing he said, that he got done, was, he shifted nato, for the first time in history, to begin to focus on the threat of china. this is different for nato. and it's a big deal. and china will feel that, they will sense it. all the countries weren't as enthusiastic as some, but biden did that. that's a win for biden and i think it's very important in terms of his foreign policy portfolio. >> and claire, just to your point, he can also point back to what is working in a very dysfunctional congress and there's also bipartisan legislation that backs up his words on the world stage. how important is that?

>> well, it's one of the few things that have happened in a bipartisan way -- >> right. >> the unification of democrats and republicans to put real resources behind upping our ability to compete against china in a variety of different ways. i mean, we have let this languish too long. the ambassador can speak with great know-how and knowledge about what china is doing around the world. they're using their economy, they're using their geographic location, they are using lending. and they are having established outposts all over the world. and this is something we have to pay attention to, because they're not the good guys. that is not a country that respects human rights or freedom. and so, i think it's really important that nato has now expanded -- it was always russia, russia, russia and you didn't talk about china at nato meetings. for the first time, it was

russia, russia, russia and china, china, china. >> yeah, i mean, ambassador mcfaul, i would like you to pick up on that and just address what claire is speaking to. this is one of the few bright bipartisan spots in american politics today. it's important to this president's political standing. >> that's right. and this was an historic moment for nato. and when they draft the new strategic concept, they do that every ten years, china will feature very prominently for the first time ever in that document. and i think that's progress. it's also, remember, one of our greatest assets, just as claire said. who does china have? they have north korea. russia has belarus. which team do you want to be on? and i think that was a key

mistake that president trump didn't understand. i give the administration, the trump administration, credit for diagnosing the threat from china and russia in their national security strategy, but their prescription was off. this is the right prescription. at the same time, i want to be clear, the main threat to our european allies in terms of security is still russia and china is a major threat but let's not -- let's not over -- think about them as ten feet tall. we need to be confident in the way we deal with our adversaries and i heard that in biden's voice today at that nato press conference. >> well, speaking of confidence in dealing with our adversaries, how are you feeling about all of the public statements leading up to this meeting with vladimir putin? ambassador? >> from our side or from putin's side? >> from our side. from our side.

>> i don't like what pew ton's saying. >> i don't care about putin's confidence. >> okay. all right. well, i've seen the message change, if you want to -- as i watch it. they initially led with, we want a stable and predictable relationship. that's still their taking point. they still say it, but it has a more edge today than it did just a week and a half ago. honestly don't believe you can have a stable and predictable relationship with vladimir putin. how can you have a stable and predictable relationship with someone who annexes territory of his neighbor? that props up a dictator in syria and violating our sovereignty in both presidential elections? so it would be nice if it could happen. i don't think it can happen. and i like the change in tone. i think the president is getting ready for a very important substantive meeting with putin. they're going to cooperate, i hope, on some things, but the majority of the agenda here in

geneva will be of disagreement, not agreement. >> and that is just as important i think to people resetting their understanding of what this relationship is supposed to look like. it's been so perverted -- i remember joe and mika saying he's a killer and trump saying, we're killers, too. trump's public out ranss about russia were beyond bizarre. perverted is the best way to describe them. and i wonder what you make of the process moves, announcing he'll have a single press conference, not a joint one with vladimir putin after the meeting. >> well, i will never forget, i mean, there were many moments in the trump presidency that were startling and that are in my hard drive forever, but one of them was that moment in helsinki when i listened to the president of the united states saying he believed vladimir putin. as joe biden has said in the

past, a killer, a kgb agent. someone who would just as soon poison his political enemies as look at them. the idea that he would take his side over his own intelligence community -- who, by the way, is made up mostly of military veterans or active military. so that was a startling moment, when i realized we were in big trouble with this guy, that this was a nut that was running our country. and i think the contrast between what happened in helsinki with putin and trump and that ridiculous love affair that we watched for year after year after year, i think the contrast is going to be significant and i think i won't be the only american that will be reassured by it. >> i mean, to claire's point, ambassador, i remember even some of trump's most committed, sort of outside advisers and loyalists watch helsinki and had the same concerns that claire

had. what does putin have on him? and my question to you is about putting the toothpaste back in the tube. i wonder what sort of lasting damage that does and what biden has to sort of bring to that fight? >> well, first, nicolle, you're absolutely right about the -- what his own team thought about helsinki. i think that will go down as the worst summit between russians and americans in our history. and not only did president trump agree with putin over our intelligence committee, he also agreed to hand over americans to be interrogated. i was one of them. and he did that brazenly, he's like -- because he just went along with this what aboutism that putin kept talking about, as you pointed out, with the killer comment. so, thankfully, i do not predict

that that will happen in geneva and just as we had a return to normalcy with our allies leading up to this meeting, i think we'll have a return to normalcy in how we talk to our adversaries. remember, during the cold war, leaders met, they met here in geneva to talk, right? putin and biden should meet, but it cannot be adverse to american national security interests, as i think helsinki was. >> let me add to our conversation nbc news senior international correspondent -- you listened to president biden's press conference. your reaction? >> i thought president biden was pretty straight about exactly how he was going to approach president putin. nicolle, here's one of my takeaways. we've spoken in the past and kind of said to each other, what is putin doing now, trying to

unpick exactly his messaging and what he's trying to achieve. well, you know, i think we can clearly say, there is nothing bewildering about president putin. what he does, his playbook, is actually pretty predictable. and for quite some days before the interview, i and my team went through his previous comments and interviewed and looked exactly how he addressed each issue and here's what he does. he goes back to resentments in the past. he talked about what aboutism, if you ask him a question about russia, he says, well, what about america? he denies, denies, denies. another thing that he does and it came across again and again in this interview, in the interview with him that we had, he threatens, he attacks and then he offers to negotiate. it's all about leverage. i think you can argue that is potentially what russia is doing with those two u.s. prisoners here in russia, i think you

could argue that's what president putin is doing with the troops on the border of ukraine. you could argue that's what he's doing with cyber attacks. you attack, deny it and then offer to negotiate. it's difficult to negotiate with putin, because you can find yourself on a slippery slope. fundamentally, president biden is going into a meeting with a man who is predictable. he can look at that interview we did and he can see the kind of things that putin is likely to say in his summit with him and i think that actually, if, you know, if a u.s. president approaches a meeting like this in a kind of cold-eyed way, where i think you know president biden is indicating that's what he wants to do, i think you can gain a lot from a summit like this. and in this particular way, nicolle, i think one of the crucial approaches with president putin right now, i think for an american president, is to just take each issue at a time. if you look at alexei navalny was asked in that news conference where he was asked

about what would happen if nall valueny died in prison, that's one specific issue, president biden's response is that should not happen. that's a clear message. they would have heard it inside the kremlin behind me. how they'll respond to that, hopefully they will respond to that by ensuring that navalny does leave prison alive. we can't control how the kremlin responds to that, but i think that's a crucial way that an american president can deal with president putin, just by taking one issue at a time. arms control is another example. >> keir, you are so strong in this interview and so fearless and what it made me think about was how donald trump treated vladimir putin like someone in the buffet line at mar-a-lago. i mean, he really hasn't been challenged by an american president for four years. and i -- but seriously, i wonder, can you just expand on what you're talking about? he's going to be in a summit with an american president

challenging him. and on the specific issue of these ransomware attacks, is putin's story that he's impotent to stop the russian criminals hacking our meat supply and gas supply or is putin's position, oh, yeah, i control them and if you're nice to me, i'll cut it out? >> i think that his position is and, you know, it's a little bit confused, but frankly, his position is, i know nothing about it, but we could negotiate about it, which of course is a contradictory position and i said to him in the interview, if you're trying to ask for a truce, you must be involved in a war. he doesn't answer that question plainly. but i'll say this, and this is where it does get tricky, just beyond the issue of the actual summit itself, nicolle. in september last year, president putin put out an offer to america to negotiate over cyber and in that offer was a suggestion that both sides should agree not to interfere in each other's elections. now, of course, what that

suggests is that president putin admits that he meddled in the u.s. election, but what it also does, that kind of an offer, it kind of sets up a situation where president putin is cable of able to say to america, well, the deal is that you won't say anything about my elections or my opponents. now, if that was agreed, say president biden agreed to something like that, then of course then going forward, any time that the biden administration sas about democracy in russia, putin gets to say, well, you're breaking our agreement. that kind of description, you can see, kind of where president putin is trying to head to and why, for the biden administration, it's not necessarily somewhere they want to go. >> keir, what does vladimir putin have to say to you and what do you think he'll say to president biden about meddling and channeling and sort of trafficking in disinformation, straight to trump's closest allies, people like rudy giuliani?

>> yeah, i -- he didn't address that specific issue, giuliani issue. i will reflect this, though, nicolle, and i think it's really interesting. after our interview, president putin continued the conversation with me away from the cameras and he was trying to keep my, you know, keep eye contact with me, you know, trying to urge me to believe him, that, for example, in his view, the west is funding some putin opponents here in russia. now nicolle, maybe, what i was getting there, was a former kgb officer using his, you know, kind of training to try and persuade me, but on the other hand, i also think that potentially what you are seeing there is president putin who is a threat but also feeling threatened. and that, again, i think, is an interesting kind of insight into

the psychology of the man that president biden is meeting. it's -- it's kind of a fortress and perhaps you can argue that president putin has a kind of fortress mentality and, again, i'm not saying -- i'm not suggesting that i know exactly how an american president like president biden with all his experience should handle this suck mitt, but there may be some insights there into the mentality of president putin and how to approach it. look, here's the thing, nicolle, what biden administration wants to pivot to china, they want to prevent china as the big threat, i think you have to be clear-eyed about the fact that russia is a country with a huge land mass, enormous energy supplies and crucially thousands of nuclear weapons. the leadership with russia is crucial. and i think washington is waking up to the connection between beijing and moscow. that's actually a connection that goes back to gorbachev, to yeltsin. this thawing of relations has

been happening for a long time. it's a challenge for america. more unity between china and russia. you can argue they're not completely unified, and they're not. but more unity between these two countries, that is a challenge. and that's one of the reasons why engaging with president putin in the right way, well, president biden would argue, is the right approach. >> ambassador mcfaul, i'd like you to pick up on two things keir is talking about. this sense that keir has that putin is both a threat and threatened. do you agree with that? >> i do. but he's threatened by his own people. he's not threatened by us. alexei navalny is his threat. we have nothing to do with him. why is navalny threatening to him? his organization fights corruption. and i think it's very important that we don't accept this moral equivalency between what happens in our country and what happens there.

that, i think, is the biggest danger for president biden. on cyber, for instance, president putin said, if we have cyber criminals, we'll hand them over to you, as long as you hand over your cyber criminals to us. but we don't have cyber criminals. we're not attacking russian companies. having ransomware. and i think when you go down that road, that what about aboutism, that's very dangerous. i hope president biden will not engage in that. >> and ambassador mcfaul, if you could also pick up on something that keir said, this elephant in the room of putin's role in funneling, more than funneling, pushing a pipeline full of disinformation into this most recent election by damaging the biden family directly. >> yes. we have overwhelming evidence for it, and i think to ignore it

is wrong. it doesn't mean you don't have a strategy to stop it. i want to be clear about it. that's hard. that's for us, cyber resilience, that's working with companies where i live so they're better at that. and that, by the way, i think the biden team needs an affirmative agenda for real information and democracy. that is the homework when they get home from jen knee vachlt but to ignore it, i think, is wrong, because that is a signal of weakness and putin likes that, right? think about the last time they met. i was there, by the way, nicolle, i was at the last meeting between vice president biden and then prime minister putin. the main subject matter then was russian occupation of georgia. have you noticed, nobody's talking about that anymore. and that's exactly what putin wants. he wants us to forget about these attacks in the past and then treat them like a respected leader in the present. i think that's wrong. >> nbc's keir simmons in moscow,

fresh off a stunning interview, the whole thing is riveting. congratulations, my friend. ambassador michael mcfaul, thank you so much for making some time for us this hour. claire mccaskill is not going anywhere yet. when we come back, a new report reveals another subpoena was issued for another key figure who ended up inadvertently on donald trump's enemies list. it is sparking demands for an investigation and new promises from biden's doj they will do so. plus, texas democrats taking democracy into their own hands. lawmakers there will be descending on washington this week to make their case. the pressure campaign is on. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. a quick break. don't go anywhere.

hearing is important to living life to the fullest. that's why inside every miracle-ear store, you'll find better bedtime stories. you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. it starts with our free hearing assessment. plus innovative products that fit your needs and budget. with free service and adjustments for life. we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage for yourself. i'm so glad you're ok, sgt. houston. this is sam with usaa. do you see the tow truck? yes, thank you, that was fast. sgt. houston never expected this to happen. or that her grandpa's dog tags would be left behind. but that one call got her a tow and rental... ...paid her claim... ...and we even pulled a few strings. making it easy to make things right: that's what we're made for. usaa. what you're made of, we're made for. get a quote today.

tonight...i'll be eating crab cakes with spicy aioli. usaa.(doorbell rings)e of, we're made for. thank you. can we be besties, simone biles? i guess? yessss! should we dismount now? another day, another chance. it could be the day you break the sales record, or the day there's appointments nonstop. with comcast business, you get the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses, and you can get the advanced cybersecurity solutions you need with comcast business securityedge. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. get started with a great offer, and ask how you can add comcast business securityedge. plus, for a limited time,ask how to get a $500 prepaid card when you upgrade. call today.

hey frank, our worker's comp insurance is expiring, should we just renew it? yeah, sure. hey there, small business owner. pie insurance here with some sweet advice to stop you from overpaying on worker's comp. try pie instead and save up to 30%. thirty percent? really? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. wow, that is easy. so, need another reminder? no, no no, i'm good. uh, yes please. oh. ho ho ho, yeah! need worker's comp insurance? get a quote in 3 minutes at easyaspie.com. do you miss the old life? ♪ ♪ do you? every day. ♪ this one for my tribe ♪ my brother is about to hurt a lot of people. we gonna have to stop him. -together. ♪ ♪

well, that was new. donald trump's enemies list was never a secret. now five of his most repeated enemies are revealed to have been spied on by the trump era doj. coincidence? anything's possible. if it's simply an incompetent overreach of the federal powers of the government or connected the trump's documented and repeated desire to investigate and prosecute his enemies, the list is staggering. and based on brand new reporting, it includes don mcgahn, who spent more than 30 hours as robert mueller's chief witness. merrick garland this morning calling for a thorough and independent organization of the trump doj's data collection. viewing if any time as the

investigation proceeds action is warranted, i will not hesitate to move swiftly. garland also initiating measures to, quote, evaluate and strengthen the department's existing policies and procedures for obtaining records of the legislative branch. that statement coming on the heels of calls over the weekend for a congressional investigation into the previous administration's efforts described by house speaker nancy pelosi as nixonian or worse. >> in terms of the data mining, what the administration did, the justice department, the lip of the former president, goes even beyond richard nixon. richard nixon had an enemies list. this is about undermining the rule of law and for barr and sessions, at least two, to say that they didn't know anything about it, is beyond belief. >> chuck schumer is calling for testimony from anyone

potentially involved in the subpoenas. he's called for his republican colleagues in the senate to join democrats to vote for subpoenas to compel testimony. >> the sins of the trump administration just continue to pile up and pile up. the actions occurred when justice department was led by two former attorneys joernl, bill barr and jeff sessions, and it requires immediate action. so today, i'm demanding that the senate republican party join democrats to subpoena both barr and sessions as well as john demers, the assistant attorney general. they must testify, sessions and barr must testify under oath as part of a formal congressional investigation. this was nothing less than a gross abuse of power, an assault on the separation of powers. i don't think we've ever had a record of this happening in the past.

>> surprise, surprise. so far, the vast majority of elected republicans have stayed silent. joining our conversation, katie venner is here and matt miller and claire mccaskill is still with us. all three msnbc contributors. katie benner, this is knowable. so, a subpoena has to be signed off by someone, you're going to help us understand who and then taken to a judge and once a judge approves it, it comes back and that someone then puts in place the sweep of electronic records. who are the people who would have been involved in applying for a subpoena like that? >> sure, so, for a subpoena of a sitting member of congress, that does have to go to the highest levels of the justice department. that means it has to go to the attorney general. so while i understand that senate majority leader schumer wants john demers to testify, he wants rod rosenstein to testify, really the people we're looking at are the attorneys general and in this case, it would have been jeff sessions.

now, this happened in february 2018. it happened before john deher was at the department. that leaves a very tiny circle of people. jeff sessions, rod rosenstein and the acting head of the national security division at the time. so, those are the people that woib likely to know. also keep in mind, the current justice department does know who signed these documents. they are refusing to say, they don't want to disclose that information, they say it's because there's an ongoing investigation by the inspector general, but the information is known inside of the justice department. >> and katie, there wasn't an ongoing investigation by the inspector general when late friday it was demanded to be one. edo callahan became rod rosenstein's deputy, oversaw the muller investigation. rod rosenstein was there until the end. jeff sessions had to pass the baton to someone for the gag order to stay in place.

"the times" is reporting that the gag orders have to be renewed every year. so, who would have approved the renewal of a gag order? >> to your point about the renewals of the gag order, that's something that would have been known by the career prosecutors that would be applying for those renewals and the hope is they would send that up the chain to the head of the national security division. again, inside of the justice department, this is an organization that's extremely careful, people don't want to be holding the bag if a mistake happens. so, oftentimes what you see is people getting approvals higher and higher and higher so they can always say somebody above me said it was all right. it's really difficult to imagine it didn't happen in this case, especially given the fact that one of the subjects of the investigation was a member of the house intelligence committee. so, again the fact that there seems to have been, if nothing else, a real oversight in this

matter, is in and of itself incredibly shocking. >> and matt miller that is the most generous description of what might have happened. and we laid out all the scenarios, it could be a total coincidence that five of the most oft attacked sort of entities and individuals by donald trump had their records seized through a secret subpoena and through apple and there was a gag order. could just be a coincidence that "the new york times," who he attacked hundreds of times,adam schiff, we counted up hundreds of time. don mcgahn, his records were seized. we learned in the mueller report, he had been pressured by rob porter, the staff secretary, to lie about a story that wasn't untrue. so, it could all be a coincidence and we should make that abundantly clear, but it could be something else. how do we find out which it was? >> you know, we need to know who the subpoenas were regarding and what they were asking for and that will answer all the questions we need to know here.

look, if the justice department was asking apple for records pertaining to don mcgahn or pertaining to adam schiff or pertaining to eric swalwell, that is the kind of thing that bould have to be approved by the senior most levels of the department, or if the attorney general was recused, as i believe jeff sessions was, the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein. they both indicated that they don't remember any subpoena of a member of congress. it's possible. it is possible that what happened here is that the justice department was targeting a staff member, a staff member for the house intelligence committee and they were looking at that person's phone records and they had phone numbers that that person called or texted with and went to apple to just ask for the names on those accounts and what they got back were the names of congressman schiff and congressman swalwell. if that's the case, that's not the type of thing that would have gone up to the leadership beforehand, because you weren't asking for information about a

member of congress, and you wouldn't necessarily have briefed him afterwards, though it would have been prudent to do so, wouldn't have been necessary. it's a pretty easy thing to get to the bottom of what the investigations were targeting and that will help us answer the question of whether they had political motivations or if it was just career prosecutors being very aggressive in trying to hunt down the source of these leaks. >> but matt, what explains the fact that they went back in mcgahn's case, four times to renew the gag order, to keep it secret? >> you know, that's the thing that's very hard to answer. i think the most generous explanation would be that these investigations were going for a long time and so the department wanted to keep them under wraps, but i say generous explanation, because there's no reason to think these investigations needed to be going on for that long. there's no reason that investigation should take three, four years. at a certain point, you know you've reached the end of the road. and what we saw from katie's excellent reporting last week is

that at some point, i don't note about the mcgahn investigation, but with the other leak investigations, bill barr came and asked that a new prosecutor be brought onto the case because he didn't like where the investigations were going. and i believe, and, you know, at least in my opinion, in some of those cases, the case involved jim comey, for example, it was because he wanted to put pressure on somebody that was a political enemy of the president. so, with regard to the gag orders, i think the department has a lot of serious questions to answer about why those were left in place for so long by the previous administration. >> claire mccaskill, i respect and invited matt and katie here because of their affinity for the most generous explanation, but we all watched donald trump. we all watched bill barr who put his thumb on the scales of justice for roger stone and mike flynn in a way that repelled and repulsed career prosecutors. they all quit those cases and in the case of one of them, left the department. so, the other book end here

should be the worst case scenario. that donald trump's public attacks against cnn, "the washington post," "the new york times," adam schiff and don mcgahn, when he -- he learned in august of 2018 that don mcgahn spent more than 30 hours with mr. mueller. are we to accept that the most generous explanation is the most likely one? >> nah. i don't think so. you know, and -- hey, i get that we can be very careful about how we parse this, but let me just say this plainly. this is really ugly, terrible abuse of power. we're talking about white house counsel here. this isn't about a democrat or a republican. we're talking about the most respected news organizations in the united states of america. the white house counsel. the head lawyer for the president of the united states who was a republican and two democratic members of the legislative branch.

and the idea that -- and here's the other thing about this, nicolle, it drives me batty -- this isn't an investigation by the inspector general as to what happened. we know what happened. they can't erase what happened. and as was just said, doj knows what happened. so, why don't they just come out with it? why don't they just come out with, these people asked for subpoenas, this was supposedly the reason they need them and this was why they asked for a gag order and this is the judge that approved the gag order and by the way, if, in fact, it turns out some miracle that sessions didn't know about it -- i think sessions probably had sent the word to the troops, do whatever you can to keep trump happy, because he wants to can me every other minute. if, in fact, these guys didn't know about it, fire the people who did it without the attorney general knowing about it. because this should not happen in the united states of america.

we spent the first part of this show talking about putin -- this is what putin does. this is putin stuff. this isn't the united states of america stuff. so, i -- i have no patience with, let's wait for the i.g. investigation and maybe oh maybe a republican will agree to subpoena the people who did this -- this is really bad. >> claire, i say this with clear eyes, that there is only one party disinterested in moving in the direction you describe. there's only one party interested in sort of holding agencies to account and it is the democratic party. so, i'm not picking on democrats in congress, but i ask you this earnestly, what else do they need to demand that people come up and testify? and if they can't get barr or sessions or the other individuals katie benner named, mr. rosenstein, why not ask

merrick garland and lisa monaco -- i guess the investigations are closed, why not demand to fulfill in a robust manner their oversight authority? >> yeah, you can't -- i mean, okay, it's an inspector general who is doing an investigation and i am very aware of the process and procedures around those investigations. but that -- nothing keeps anybody else from investigating at the same time. now, there are rules in the senate about issuing subpoenas in the judiciary committee. once again, we spent a lot of time talking about the power of the minority in the senate. there is going to need to be a republican, hopefully more than one, that realizes, this isn't about donald trump, this isn't about republicans, this isn't about the midterms, this is about the rule of law in this country and whether or not a department of justice can go after the president's own lawyer. i mean, for get about the

democrats. just focus on that. and if the republicans, because they're so afraid of the trump base, can't even do that, i just want them to shut up about the overreach of big government. i mean, josh hawley and his crew that want to do their populist shtick, like they care about populism, if they're not willing to stand up for the little guy when the government is overreaching in this way, they're never going to stand up for the little guy. >> you heard it from claire. katie benner, thank you so much for your reporting on this. matt miller, thank you for your insider knowledge. thank you for spending some time with us. claire is sticking around. up next for us, those texas democrats who successfully blocked a restrictive voting bill from becoming state law at the 11th hour last month, well, they are heading to capitol hill for a last ditch effort to try to rally support for federal voting rights legislation. can they make anything happen in washington?

♪ ♪ ♪ hey google, turn up the heat. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ welcome to allstate, ♪ ♪are you down, d-d-down, d-d-down, d-d-down♪ where we're driving down the cost of insurance. ♪ ♪ are you down, down♪ ♪d-down, down? are you♪ drivers who switched saved over $700. ♪ allstate. here, better protection costs a whole lot less. you're in good hands. click or call for a lower rate today. shingles? camera man: yeah,

1 out of 3 people get shingles in their lifetime. well that leaves 2 out of 3 people who don't. i don't know anybody who's had it. your uncle had shingles. you mean that nasty red rash? and donna next door had it for weeks. yeah, but there's nothing you can do about it. camera man: actually, shingles can be prevented. shingles can be whaaaat? camera man: prevented. you can get vaccinated. baby, call the doctor. camera man: hey! you can also get it from your pharmacist! 50 years or older? get vaccinated for shingles now.

we want to make sure people know their ability to vote and to vote freely and fairly and help to decide the outcome of elections is under threat. we've got to show the members of the state legislature that we the people mean business. and thanks to the texas democrats in that body, we were able to stop it momentarily. if we allow democracy to slip away through these voter suppression bills, then that will be on us. >> the same texas democrats who

blocked a republican-backed voting restriction bill by staging a walkout last month are heading to capitol hill today, hoping to do what they do best, making the impossible seem possible in just the nick of time and inject some life into the debate around the for the people act. that federal voting overhaul big struggling the for the people act, that bill struggling to get outfit gates in congress. state democrats plan to lobby senators along with vice president harris on wednesday on behalf of the legislation ahead of a rally hosted by beto o'rourke in austin this weekend. efforts like these in texas are becoming more widespread and more urgent. "washington post" writes this. like termites, destructive but largely unseen, anti-democracy forces around the country are gnawing at the foundations of america's free and fair elections. it's bad enough that most republicans continue to defend trump's slander on american democracy and use it as a pretext to suppress the vote instead of looking for ways to appeal to more voters. it's even scarier that they're trying to write themselves an

insurance policy so if their vote suppression strategy fails in 2024, they can nonetheless reclaim power. joining our conversation is matt dowd, founder of country over party, pulitzer prize winner columnist eugene robinson is here. matt dowd, you were at this rally this weekend. talk about that. >> i was actually at the rally this morning in texas, which is where bluebell ice cream is founded, so yeah, i went and about 400 people turned out in this small town of every race, color, creed that you can imagine. all concerned about this. and one of the big concerns, obviously, is what the republicans are doing, and the other concern is what the democrats aren't doing in the midst of this as we have this, and to me, the voter restrictions are one aspect of us, but the most nefarious aspect of this, and i spoke at this before beto did this morning, is it's basically -- it's not only voter

restrictions. it's an attempt at voter nullification. all -- many parts of these laws, including here in texas, are about taking away the ability to certify an election and to inject partisans in the process of counting the votes, and that, to me, is the worst aspect of this. i was thinking, in your lead-up on the show today, about what's going to happen with putin, what biden's going to do and all of that, and i think that's great, and we obviously need to deal with russia in the midst of this, but right here, right now, there are attempts to lose our democracy in our own country. right now, there's attempts to roll back democracy in our own country today, and i think for anybody, democrats, independents, and republicans, to me, what is the right to vote and what is the ability to elect people? it's fundamentally our only aspect, our only tool that we have to hold elected officials accountable, and what they're doing, republicans across the board, are devising attempts so they can't be held accountable

for all the other stuff that they're doing on guns, on everything, on budgets, on taxes, on everything else they're doing. they don't want to be held accountable, and what way to do that is the only way that we can hold them accountable is our democracy. >> you know, eugene, it took everybody in the media too long to focus in on what matthew dowd is talking about and i remember reading the georgia law before it was signed in that period between the bill being signed and major league baseball boycotting atlanta, georgia. and it's clear when you read it through that it's designed to make 2020 end differently. it's designed to take raffensperger and gabe sterling out of the decision making and put the trump cronies in. a lot of these laws have now as a feature, not a bug, these sort of workarounds the will of the voter. and i wonder if those require -- and again, i am not putting this on democrats because it's their

fault, i'm putting it on democrats because they're the only party interested in governing and preserving our democracy, but i wonder if those aspects require some focused attention and legislation just to under -- to sort of undo those voter nullification aspects of many of these state laws. >> well, yes, they require attention, and yes, they have to be undone, but who's going to do that? that's not happening. and it's deeply frustrating, because as matt said, these are, in many ways, the worst aspects of these voter suppression laws, because they set up the circumstances under which a vote can essentially be nullified or overturned by a partisan election official or a partisan state legislature, which is just outrageous. and you know, i'm kind of depressed about all this, because i fear this may have to

be tested in the courts. it may have to be the justice department that, under what's left of the voting rights act and other federal legislation, has to take these states to court and see if they can get some favorable court rulings against what is clearly an assault on our democracy. because i'm not as optimistic as i would like to be that the senate is going to move on either s 1 or s-4 or any of these voting rights bills that need to be passed. i'm just not very optimistic about that right now. >> so, claire, we're left to understand that joe manchin and others, you've made clear, it's not just him, care more about the filibuster than our democracy. what happens next? >> well, i'm not sure i'd put it that way. i don't think they care more

about the filibuster than democracy, but i do think that we don't have enough democratic senators right now. joe manchin has way too much power because we only have 50. so, i think, you know, am i worried about next -- the next set of elections if these laws are not struck down in the courts, which you know, building on what eugene just said, i think they will, many of them, be struck down in the courts, and lawsuits are being filed every day. mark elias and his large group of lawyers have spread out all over the country and really what we're talking about today that is really important, which is the most nefarious part, it's not their efforts to keep you from casting your vote that i'm most worried about. it's their efforts to undermine counting your vote. that's the problem. now, ironically, what they're doing is they're taking away the constitutional powers of elected officials. and those elected officials,

many of them, are republicans. so, it will be very interesting to see how this plays out. are the secretaries of state across the country not going to protest when their legislature says, by the way, we're going to completely take away all your power? i think that remains to be seen. and one more time for people in the back, i don't think there's long-term success for any party whose driving policy is let's make sure you can't cast a vote and if you do, let's make sure we decide whether it counts. >> yeah, it's not exactly a rousing campaign message. thank you for keeping this -- go ahead. >> i'm just going to say one thing. it may not be long-term good political policy to do this, but it certainly destroys our democracy in the short-term, and i'm not sure our democracy goes to the long-term if it's destroyed in the short-term. >> and that's a concern. that's why we'll stay on it every single day with all of your help. matt dowd, eugene robinson and

claire mccaskill. a jo yeugene robinson a claire mccaskill of quality candidates from our resume database. claim your seventy five dollar credit, when you post your first job at indeed.com/home. you've been taking mental health meds, and your mind is finally in a better place. except now you have uncontrollable body movements called tardive dyskinesia - td. and it can seem like that's all people see. some meds for mental health can cause abnormal dopamine signaling in the brain. while how it works is not fully understood, ingrezza is thought to reduce that signaling. ingrezza is a prescription medicine used to treat adults with td movements in the face and body. people taking ingrezza can stay on their current dose of most mental health meds. don't take ingrezza if you're allergic to any of its ingredients. ingrezza may cause serious side effects, including sleepiness. don't drive, operate heavy machinery, or do other dangerous activities until you know how

ingrezza affects you. other serious side effects include potential heart rhythm problems and abnormal movements. shift the focus more on you. ask your doctor about ingrezza. it's simple. one pill, once-daily. #1 prescribed for td. learn how you could pay as little as $0 at ingrezza.com ♪ ♪ tonight...i'll be eating cheesy cauliflower pizza with extra broccolini. my tuuuurrrrn! tonight...i'll be eating cheesy cauliflower pizza and yummy broccolini! (doorbell rings) thanks. (doorbell rings) thank you. ♪ ♪ is that my leotard? no. yes... ehh, you can keep it. lactaid is 100% real milk, just without the lactose. so you can enjoy it even if you're sensitive to dairy. so anyone who says lactaid isn't real milk is also saying mabel here isn't a real cow.

and she really hates that.

♪♪ this is a gross abuse of power. it's an assault on the separation of powers. the notion that any president via political appointees could manipulate our democratic system to tap into personal data has the fingerprints of a dictatorship, a dictatorship, all over it. >> hi again, everyone, it's 5:00 in the east. whatever we learn next about the extraordinary occasion of a

sitting white house counsel who emerged as the single most damaging witness to donald j. trump in the special counsel investigation into the ex-president's efforts to obstruct a probe into his ties with russia, don't lose sight of this. the doj spying on its own conduit to the president is something seriously screwed up. "new york times" citing two people familiar with the matter reporting the bombshell revelation that white house counsel don mcgahn and his wife were spied on during the trump presidency by the doj and, this is important, that a gag order to keep it under wraps was extended through at least two trump attorneys general. from that "times" reporting, quote, it is not clear what fbi agents were investigating, whether mr. mcgahn was their specific focus or whether he was swept up in a larger net because he had communicated with someone who was under scrutiny. still, the disclosure that agents had collected data on a sitting white house counsel is

extraordinary. nbc news has reached out to apple and don mcgahn, we have yet to receive a response but here's where this news may go from something extraordinary to a five alarm file. the extreme measures taken to keep the information secret for years, times reporting this, under justice department policy, gag orders for subpoenas may be renewed for up to a year at a time, suggesting that prosecutors went to court several times to prevent apple from notifying the mcgahns earlier. then there's this from the mueller investigation. a tiny detail that would strongly suggest that the theory that the mcgahns' information was inadvertently swept up by the mueller prosecutors might be less likely than other explanations, that in the final days of the obstruction probe, prosecutors asked mcgahn to produce his own records to corroborate his communications with trump around the former president's instruction to fire mueller. if you remember, that was one of the flash points of the obstruction investigation. from donald trump vs. the united states by michael schmidt, the

investigators knew that mcgahn had spoken on the phone with trump that weekend. maybe they thought if they could get mcgahn's phone records, they could show that trump had indeed been calling him. prosecutor andrew goldstein went back to mcgahn's attorney, bill burke, in late 2018 with a homework assignment. please tell mcgahn to get the phone records himself. this process took several weeks. but finally, mcgahn received them in the mail and sent them to burck who gave them to gold goldstein of the mueller probe. still, it's just a theory, a haunting one. did trump so successfully and so thoroughly corrupt his doj that mcgahn's records were pursued around the time he became a key witness for the mueller investigation and did the secrecy around that data collection from a sitting white house counsel which was operationalized by multiple doj

actors signal a complete perversion of justice? only time will tell. speaker pelosi and senate majority leader schumer are calling for hearings on capitol hill. also today, news that the top doj national security official, who would have overseen any leak investigation, is leaving at the end of next week. the obliteration of the rule of law under the disgraced ex-president is where we start this hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. the aforementioned "new york times" washington correspondent mike schmidt is here, jeremy bash, former chief of staff at the cia and department of defense, and frank figliuzzi is here, former fbi assistant director for counterintelligence and host of the bureau podcast, lucky for us, all three instinct contributors. mike schmidt, take us through what you reported today in "the new york times" about don mcgahn, and his wife, mrs. mcgahn's data being collected. >> well, you know, basically, as you were laying out, they found out about this three years after the fact, so this happened in

february of 2018. it's a period of time that we now know that the fbi and the justice department were looking at a range of folks and a range of different leak investigations. it could be related to that. it could be related to something else. but it takes three years for them to find out about this, to find out the fact that the government had access to their personal information. and as you were saying, the biggest problem here with all of this is a problem of, well, based on what we know, and we don't know everything about this came about, but the biggest problem that we do know is the problem of perception. that this is exactly what donald trump wanted. it was in a period of time in which donald trump was calling mcgahn a liar and a leaker. he was very upset about reports that mcgahn had told mueller about the attempts to fire mueller. he tried to get mcgahn two weeks

before the subpoena was issued to go back on his story, and that, unfortunately, is the most that we know about this. it is very possible that mcgahn's records could have been soaked up in another investigation, in another leak investigation. there were a ton of leaks in the first six months of the trump administration that the intelligence community and the justice department believed needed to be looked at. some of them having nothing to do with donald trump, some of them having a lot to do with donald trump. but that is where we sort of find ourselves in this story, trying to find out what it was that led federal prosecutors to go after these records. did they know that the number and address that they were targeting was of mcgahn's? was it sloppy investigative work? interestingly, there's a fair amount of silence from the justice department on this. as you were pointing out, merrick garland has put out a statement today about this. there is an inspector general's

investigation that has been referred, but at the same time, no explanation from the justice department about how this happened. >> mike schmidt, if you could just take us under the hood in terms of how this works, i mean -- and i understand the responsibility of giving the most generous explanation to our viewers, so we'll do that. inadvertently, a sweep of seized data that you subpoena apple for collects the sitting white house counsel. that job is supposed to be the only human being who talks to the united states justice department during a four-year presidential term. surely someone at the united states justice department became aware of it at some point, if not around the original subpoena, which had to have been signed by someone at the justice department, then around the three or four gag orders that were renewed based on your reporting. what kind of people -- what

kinds of roles are involved in that? >> well, i think what you're hitting on is the notion that if this was a mistake, then you think that the justice department would have reached out to mcgahn to say, hey, look, we were looking at something else, your stuff got soaked up in this thing, you're obviously a very important person that was in the government at the time, you were the justice department's chief witness against the president and an existential threat to the presidency, to donald trump's presidency, at the time. we just wanted to give you a heads up on this. instead, the mcgahns learning of this through notification from their providers or from apple or such. so, you would think that someone -- this may have come across someone's desk earlier if it was inadvertent. in terms of perception, one of the unfortunate things here is that here we are a few weeks into this story. we know that the justice department subpoenaed or tried to subpoena records from five

sort of different entities. one bucket of those people was the enemy of the people, donald trump's, you know, biggest enemies, "the new york times," "the washington post," and cnn, okay? so those were the first three. the next one we know about is adam schiff, the president's chief critic on capitol hill who was leading the investigation into russia's meddling in the election. the next one is don mcgahn, the chief witness against the president in the mueller investigation. look, my guess is there's other subpoenas out there and such, but the five that we know about fit very neatly into the category of the president's greatest enemies, and these are not enemies that donald trump talked about behind closed doors. these are enemies that donald trump tweeted about, that donald trump talked about in public interviews, in public statements on the south lawn of the white house, and in private to his aides. and obviously, because of that, there is a lot of skepticism

about what happened and hits on the underlying notion that when the president of the united states talks about using the justice department or using his powers to go after his rivals, disclosures about investigations will be negatively impacted by that regardless of what went into those decisions. >> and here we are, frank figliuzzi, four years of covering a president who all four of us have been here in this time period talking about the latest attack against rod rosenstein or against don mcgahn or his interview where he says to a fox news anchor, i hate flippers after michael cohen cooperated with the government. everything out in the public. and to mike schmidt's point and to the reporting that we've cited, there are certainly explanations, but none that tie all this together. even an inadvertent collection of a sitting white house counsel who's the chief witness in the obstruction probe against donald trump, who is the single conduit between the justice department

and the white house, does not explain how his data was collected and three or four gag orders were renewed to protect information from don mcgahn. >> nicole, sadly, i spent some of my weekend on the phone with a number of people like myself who have had experience running leak investigations. and try as we might, we could not come up with an explanation for all of this, mcgahn plus the reporters plus the members of the house intel committee. that didn't involved a complete trampling of existing rules and regulations at doj. the best case scenario that we could come up with was that there was an overly aggressive approach to ferret out leaks, that they forgot the rules,

rules about special investigative matters called s.i.m.s. s.i.m.s. require much higher level approval for such things, certainly investigations involving congress would do that. the white house counsel would do that. what does that mean? it means you'd go up to the general counsel of the fbi. you'd possibly involve the deputy director of the fbi. you certainly would involve an assistant attorney general or even the d.a.g. or the a.g. himself on something like this. so, on the worst case scenario that we could come up with, is that this was indeed reflective of a blacklist going after the president's enemies and i could get into the weeds on some of the things that simply don't sound plausible with regard to barr, sessions, rosenstein, all saying they just can't recall such things, it doesn't jive with the nature of these, and then the scenario i keep seeing kicked around in the press which is, well, here's the inadvertent scenario. a staffer is under

investigation. they grab the staffer's records via subpoena, he's called 72 people, and then they start going through and collecting metadata on each of those people. here's the problem with that. at the point -- first of all, the way it's supposed to work in a normal administration is you go, time out, we're investigating a staffer, he's probably calling members of congress, so let's use our own directories in the fbi. anybody seen these california phone numbers? oh, yes, there's swalwell and schiff's phone numbers. stop what you're doing. that's not a leak. a staffer calling his own members on the committee is not a leak. so, stop. you've lost your predication. right? so, this isn't ringing true here, especially when metadata is concerned. i get subscriber identities. that happens all the time. but guess what? even the carriers aren't going to care much about subscriber identities and probably aren't going to notify the subscriber. that's the mystery of the mcgahn thing, and maybe mike can shed

light on whether we're talking metadata or simply subscriber identity. if he was notified, it's most likely metadata, which means they looked at his kids, his family, his wife, and they knew exactly what they were doing against the protocols established. >> i want to bring jeremy in, but mike, do you want to respond to that? >> we wrote everything that we knew today about this, and you know, unfortunately to the story, there's a lot that we don't know here. we don't know what was in that subpoena that went to apple. we do not know what was handed over. and that's one of the frustrating and difficult parts about this story is that there's a lot of opaqueness here and there is an explanation that has gone around from senior justice department officials at the time under sessions that basically say that they didn't know anything about this. that this was not anything they signed off on. that is just what's gone around

in that area. obviously, you know, we would need to hear from those people under oath before congress to sort of understand that. but that -- and that's not a satisfying answer. but we're trying to figure out as much as we can in seeing that subpoena and what was handed over to apple would answer a lot of those questions. >> all right, jeremy bash, here's what we are going to do, you and me together, my friend. this is not like what's behind trump's obsession with sucking up to vladimir putin. this is knowable. there are men and women who worked in the united states justice department who signed on to an application to a judge to subpoena all of this data, whether it's subscriber information or metadata. it's knowable right now. and i'm guessing that lisa monaco, the current d.a.g., knows exactly who those individuals are. they may not have done anything wrong but to mike and frank's point, there's certainly the perception that they did, and it is at this point far more likely that mike and his colleagues will learn about this than congress, but why is that the

case? why don't the intelligence committees call up lisa monaco or merrick garland or john decimalers, who's still at the justice department, the head of the national security division or his predecessor who apparently was there heading up the national security division, according to mike's colleague, katie benner, in the last hour. why not get these answers today? >> well, it's possible, nicole, that congress wants give doj time internally to collect the information to conduct witness interviews, to do some review of records themselves, because an investigation can't unfold in a day. but i think the question, if i were the deputy attorney general or i were the inspector general or i were a congressional overseer that i would be asking on a nonpartisan basis is, was this witness intimidation? was this an effort by donald trump to intimidate don mcgahn, his own counsel, because don mcgahn was potentially a witness against him in the impeachment matter? in the matter of whether or not the president of the united states engaged in obstruction of justice. i mean, as we know from the

mueller report, don mcgahn was asked to do things like fire robert mueller, impede the investigation on multiple fronts, and don mcgahn said, no, and it obviously cost don mcgahn, in terms of his relationship with the president, and ultimately he departed, i think we need to understand whether or not these leak investigations, this subpoenaing of records was part of an effort in witness intimidation. if we could rule that out, i think it will give us much more comfort that maybe there's something valid here, but until we can, i think we have to be incredibly concerned about these facts. >> so, jeremy, let me just press you. i mean, we can talk about what this was and was not. one of these big theories is that it was an inadvertent sweep. what, to you, having served on the intelligence committee, and really familiar with collection and inadvertent collection, what would justify not alerting the one position that is the official and legal conduit between the u.s. justice department and a president in his white house, that his data

had been collected and they -- if they renew the gag order three times, that was known for at least three years by someone other than the person who requested the data. >> yeah, to me, gag order means we don't want the person to know we're looking at them because they're a target of some investigation into wrongdoing, including possibly by them. and so, i don't buy the inadvertent theory and i don't even buy the theory that mcgahn was, like, a helpful witness in another case on leaks or another case, because of course, if he were kind of a helpful witness, you'd ask for his voluntary cooperation or for some reason it couldn't be obtained, you wouldn't hesitate to inform him that his information was collected. unless, again, and frank and others know this well, unless the government suspected that don mcgahn was somehow doing something wrong. and the only scenario in which i can think of them thinking that he did something wrong is that the president decided he did something wrong, and again, that goes back to the witness intimidation scenario. >> so, jeremy, what is the worst case scenario when you look at

this the way mike schmidt laid it out, that five well-known, of the repeated targets of donald trump's ended up having their private data collected by his own doj? >> well, the department of justice did a lot of great things over the last four, five years in terms of the national security realm in terms of sanctions on state adversaries and bringing cases against terrorists and cyber criminals so there's a lot of nonpolitical, nonpartisan work that folks do. the question is, really, could there have been a group that were so corrupt and so beholden to the political aims of the white house that in effect doj's mandate, its constitutional duty was undermined by political pressure. i don't think we know enough at this hour to determine whether that was the case. but all these stories that michael and others have been reporting certainly require a lot more investigation. >> and the truth will eventually, i think, in this case, come out. mike schmidt, thank you for starting us off this hour and

talking about your reporting. jeremy bash and frank figliuzzi are sticking around. when we return, two days before president biden's summit with vladimir putin and the russian leader's whataboutism is on full display in an exclusive new interview with keir simmons. plus, the bombshell news that the trump doj was secretly spying on democratic lawmakers and donald trump's own white house counsel has shifted the conversation about prosecuting the disgraced ex-president for his behavior in office. what once was a question of whether we could afford to prosecute may now be a question about whether we can afford not to. and there are new developments in the prosecution of the capitol insurrection and new depths of ignorance by the republicans who continue to look away. "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere.

welcome to allstate. ♪ ♪ you already pay for car insurance, why not take your home along for the ride? allstate. here, better protection costs a whole lot less. you're in good hands. click or call to bundle today. i booked our hotel on kayak. it's flexible if we need to cancel. cancel. i haven't left the house in a year. nothing will stop me from vacation. no canceling. flexible cancellation. kayak. search one and done.

what happens when we welcome change? fwe can transform our. workforce overnight out of convenience, or necessity. we can explore uncharted waters, and not only make new discoveries, but get there faster, with better outcomes. with app, cloud and anywhere workspace solutions, vmware helps companies navigate change-- meeting them where they are, and getting them where they want to be. faster. vmware. welcome change. [sfx: thunder rumbles] [sfx: rainstorm] ♪♪ comfort in the extreme. ♪♪ the lincoln family of luxury suvs. [ "me and you" by barry louis polisar ] ♪ me and you just singing on the train ♪ ♪ me and you listening to the rain ♪ ♪ me and you we are the same ♪

♪ me and you have all the fame we need ♪ ♪ indeed, you and me are we ♪ ♪ me and you singing in the park ♪ ♪ me and you, we're waiting for the dark ♪ when you're born and raised in san francisco, you grow up wanting to make a difference. that's why, at recology, we're proud to be 100% employee owned with local workers as diverse as san francisco. we built the city's recycling system from the ground up, helping to make san francisco the greenest big city in america but we couldn't do it without you. thank you, san francisco. gracias, san francisco. -thank you. -[ speaks native language ] let's keep making a differene together. brother against brother. well, this should be interesting. [ grunting ] i've spent my entire life in your shadow... and now, you spend the rest of yours livin' in mine. ♪ ♪ i ain't going anywhere little brother.

i have met with him, and he's bright. he's tough. and i have found that he is, as they say, when you used to play ball, a worthy adversary. but the fact is that i'll be happy to talk with you when it's over, not before. about what the discussion will entail. >> president biden just a couple hours ago ahead of his summit with russian president vladimir putin, which is set to take place in less than 48 hours. ahead of that meeting, our friend and colleague, keir simmons, sat down with putin for an exclusive interview, speaking for nearly an hour and a half and touching on everything from that very meeting to the russian relationship with the u.s. and as keir told us in the last hour, putin's whataboutism was in full display.

here's keir pressing putin on the subject of imprisoning alexey navalny. >> mr. president, why are you so threatened by opposition? >> translator: who says that i feel threatened by opposition? who told you that? you are presenting it as dissent and intolerance towards dissent in russia. we view it completely differently. you have mentioned the law on foreign agents, but that's not something that we invented. that law was adopted back in the 1930s in the united states. would you like me to keep answering? >> reporter: in america, we call what you're doing whataboutism. it's a way of not answering the question. will you commit that you will personally assure that alexey navalny will leave prison alive? >> translator: look, such decisions in this country are not made by the president. they're made by the court.

i proceed from the premise that the person that you have mentioned, the same kind of measures will apply, not in any way worse than to anybody else who happens to be in prison. >> reporter: his name is alexey navalny. people will note that you -- >> translator: i don't care, i don't care. look, look, please listen to me carefully. his name can be anything. he's one of the individuals who are in prison. for me, he's one of the citizens of the russian federation who has been found guilty by a russian court of law and is imprisoned. >> we're back with jeremy bash. jeremy, i want to ask you this question. to what end does it serve putin to be alternately totally impotent, like, it's not up to me, i have no role if navalny lives or dies, oh, ransomware, those are criminals, i didn't do

that. and almighty. which part of that brand serves him in which capacity? >> they reinforce each other, nicole, because i think putin likes this mystique of, hey, i'm not the all powerful guy and yet obviously his actions speak louder than words. navalny is in prison. there are reports of his failing health. there are two other americans who are imprisoned in russian prisons, and of course, russia is undertaking cyberattacks. they are engaging in election interference. they are massing troops on the doorstep of nato. and there are -- they're trying to dominate what they call their near abroad, the european continent, really in the face of, you know, in the face of efforts by european countries to stand firm and stand together against russian aggression. i think joe biden, though, today, nicole, if i could say, i think he's been preparing for this moment for like a quarter century because not only today at nato was he the commander in chief of the u.s. military but he was the commander in chief of a 30-nation military alliance

that is designed and was created to check russian aggression and also to fight terrorism and confront cyberattacks and deal with china and deal with all these other threats that are out there. and i think joe biden is ready for this, this meeting. he comes into it with the wind at his back. he's been sitting down with democracies in both the uk and in brussels, and so i think this is a good set-up for biden. i think he likes the contrast. >> you know what i thought of watching him today. he used to say the things he said today about putin and at home have an echo chamber in his own party and among republicans like john mccain and at the time lindsey graham who was either brainwashed then or brainwashed now. he now is there with the other party in this country sort of looking the other way when there's an insurrection that very much cheers vladimir putin. i think putin raised the insurrectionists as victims of government persecution. i mean, how does -- is president biden weakened by what's happening in the republican party today?

>> well, it would be better if we were unified as a country if partisanship stopped at the water's edge, but unfortunately, nicole, the dynamic that we're in is the president of the united states goes to europe and the best he can credibly say is that the democratic party is unified and there are some elements of the republican party that still stand for a strong nato and still stand for a bulwark against russian aggression. and against autocracy. i just want to paint this in a larger tableau. when russian state media, as you referenced, backs the january 6th insurrectionists and calls them innocent victims of government persecution, what you see there is an unbelievable alignment between that strain of trumpism and putinism, an alignment between a certain segment of our domestic political body politic and the body politic that feeds autocracies and i think what biden is doing in europe on the world stage this week is saying there's a big contest here. it's a contest between democracy and autocracy and we've got to choose. and i think that's the message

not only for all the people globally but it's also a challenge to the american people. which path are we going to choose? are we going to expand the franchise, help people to vote, open up our system, or are we going to go towards the automatic instinct? i think that remains to be seen in our country and all over the world. >> no, and just to tie the first two segments together, i mean, those stories must cheer putin to hear that trump -- that, whether it was directed by trump or not, all of his enemies ended up spied on by his justice department. >> i think vladimir putin, a former kgb officer, someone who's used the intelligence apparatus to go after his own domestic political enemies looks at that and what "the new york times" and others have reported and said, that's the right way to go. go get em, guys. that's the theory of the case of an autocracy, which is use the apparatus of the state to go after your political opponents. it's obviously an anathema here

in the united states of america. it's anti-democratic. it's anti-rule of law. it's anti-truth and it's something i'm grateful to see biden on the world stage pushing back on. >> jeremy bash, thank you for spending time with us today. it's great to see you, my friend. when we return, the case for prosecuting the disgraced ex-president. it might not be a question of whether the country can afford to but rather whether it can afford not to. that question next. rather whetn afford not to. that question next dy for every , with glucerna. it's the number one doctor recommended brand that is scientifically designed to help manage your blood sugar. live every moment. glucerna. this is the sound of change. it's the sound of low cash mode from pnc bank giving you the options and extra time needed to help you avoid an overdraft fee. low cash mode on virtual wallet from pnc bank. one way we're making a difference. good morning, mr. sun. good morning, blair. [ chuckles ]

whoo. i'm gonna grow big and strong. yes, you are. i'm gonna get this place all clean. i'll give you a hand. and i'm gonna put lisa on crutches! wait, what? said she's gonna need crutches. she fell pretty hard. you might want to clean that up, girl. excuse us. when owning a small business gets real, progressive helps protect what you built with customizable coverage. -and i'm gonna -- -eh, eh, eh. -donny, no. -oh. no, he's not in his room. ♪♪ dad, why didn't you answer your phone? your mother loved this park. ♪♪ she did. we need to reduce plastic waste in the environment. that's why at america's beverage companies,

our bottles are made to be re-made. not all plastic is the same. we're carefully designing our bottles to be one hundred percent recyclable, including the caps. they're collected and separated from other plastics, so they can be turned back into material that we use to make new bottles. that completes the circle, and reduces plastic waste. please help us get every bottle back.

the conversation surrounding the possibility of president biden's department of justice having to prosecute donald trump for his conduct in office has always been a really heated one, considering the potential cost to our country. a meltdown at the heart of american politics. but the events of the last few days have represented a bit of a shift in the way those discussions go down. from whether or not the united states can afford to prosecute an ex-president to whether or not we can afford not to. that decision largely rests with attorney general merrick garland, who now faces what a "washington post" columnist calls an uncomfortable but fundamental question. does fighting against using the justice system for political purposes require a new administration to expose and if appropriate prosecute a previous administration for the very violation the responsible newcomers are trying to avoid? joining our conversation is kim atkins stohr, msnbc contributor.

and tim o'brien, senior columnist at bloomberg opinion. kim, the "boston globe" has really brought this issue and these questions, i think, to the fore in really legal ways, slightly less political than, i think, this whole idea of prosecuting your political enemies, which is the conversation trump tried to have with the four years of his presidency. but i like the frame that the globe puts around it, future proofing the white house. where do you understand that conversation to be today, in light of the new revelations about white house counsel don mcgahn being spied on? >> well, this is something that our board has been working on for months, just taking a look at the trump administration and the way that it exposed how there really were not enough rules, not enough protections to protect democracy. i think jeremy bash is exactly right. it is an existential crisis between whether we will have a democracy or an autocracy, and

so we laid out just part by part all the ways that donald trump exposed how dangerous the white house could be in the hands of a tyrant and what must be done in order to ensure that doesn't happen and one of the most fundamental parts is that there is accountability, and at the end of the day, when laws are broken, that accountability has to include the possibility that even a president can face prosecution. we laid out even before all these latest news revelations about his obstruction of justice as detailed by robert mueller, his use of the office to promote his children just as monarchies do, his persecution of political enemies, his use of the office to enrich his own business. these are all things that are extraordinarily dangerous to democracy, and not to mention his efforts to subvert the election. and so, if these aren't enough to call for prosecution, i don't

know what is. and even more importantly, this is so much bigger than donald trump. it will leave open the presidency for any tyrant of either party to come in and commit the same sort of atrocities or worse, and that's what we mean by future proofing it. we have to look ahead and know that democracy is at stake, and we have to act now. >> you know, tim o'brien, there's this giraldo rivera comment that he made to sean hannity once. he said if you were around when nixon was president, he never would have left office. you could have protected him. there is this fun house aspect to our politics. they are carried out on the right in this extremely distorted way, and is i wonder if you can speak to the fact that we have this very narrow lens on whether cy vance is going to be the one to finally hold donald trump criminally accountable. when we have this vast body of

corruption. we have the reporting at doj. we have every word of the mueller report, which is an abuse of power at best, criminal obstruction of justice, probably more accurately. we have the corruption of the family. we have the corruption of the businesses, making the secret service pay to use his facilities. i mean, what is sort of the appropriate reset on corruption-proofing the american presidency? >> you know, i think you're right to point to cy vance's investigation, nicole, because it's important. but in the larger scheme of things, it is of an order of magnitude less important than trump being held accountable for what he did when he was president. obstruction of justice with a clear fact pattern laid out around it in great detail by robert mueller. election interference, which is both a state and a federal crime. there are tape recordings of him calling up officials in georgia and asking him -- asking them to find him votes that he needs to

topple biden. and of course, inciting an insurrection, which he did on national tv. there is no doubt about what he did here. the only doubts around this are whether or not we are going to be rigorous and robust in enforcing the rule of law in this country, and the supreme court's already laid out a very clear and even-handed standard on this. when they approved trump's tax returns getting released, which is that, no individual, including the president of the united states, is above the rule of law. and the clearest reset here is for us to look at the simplest truth. if we don't enforce and uphold and respect the rule of law, then anyone who comes after trump will be encouraged to flout it just as grotesquely and dangerously as he did, and you are already seeing this in these little trump clones who are planning to run for office soon who are -- have adopted his language, adopted his mannerisms, and understand it's an effective path to power, even

though they're besmirching the constitution and the rule of law along the way. >> no, it is extraordinary, and you think of republicans making a capital case over president obama wearing a tan suit. if the shoe were on the other foot, we wouldn't be having this conversation. kim atkins stohr and tim o'brien, thank you so much for spending time with us. to be continued. when we return, the sprawling criminal investigation into january 6th, including charges against multiple members of another far-right militia group. we'll get to all of it after a short break. don't go anywhere. f it after a short break. don't go anywhere.

when traders tell us how to make thinkorswim even better, we listen. because platforms this innovative, aren't just made for traders-they're made by them. thinkorswim trading. from td ameritrade. you need an ecolab scientific clean here. and you need it here. and here. and here. which is why the scientific expertise that helps operating rooms stay clean is now helping the places you go every day too. seek a commitment to clean.

look for the ecolab science certified seal.

my name is douglas. i'm a writer/director and i'm still working. in the kind of work that i do, you are surrounded by people who are all younger than you. i had to get help somewhere along the line to stay competitive. i discovered prevagen. i started taking it and after a period of time, my memory improved. it was a game-changer for me. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.

criminal charges against the far-right militia group the three percenters are piling up as they join the oath keepers and the proud boys as having multiple members swept up in the now sprawling criminal investigation into the capitol insurrection. on friday, six southern california men, including four self-described members of the three percenters movement, were charged with felony counts of conspiracy and aiding and abetting the obstruction of a joint session of congress, and that's just one of many cases making their way through the courts. all the while, some republicans on capitol hill continue to downplay the significance of january 6th. just yesterday, you know who, ron johnson, told fox news that january 6th was not an armed insurrection and continued his claims that it was a peaceful protest. watch. >> they weren't rioting. they don't -- it doesn't look

like an armed insurrection when you have people that breached the capitol, and i don't condone it, but they're staying within the rope lines in the rotunda. that's not what an armed insurrection would look like. >> we're going to bring in nbc 4 washington's investigative reporter scott macfarlane who is all over this story but let me just, to mr. ron-anon johnson, this reporting in the "philadelphia inquirer," accused rioter once assaulted an ex with pizza and tried to drown her. he was so peaceful, he can't roam free. and another judge is ordering another january 6th defendant named ryan transferred to state prison in pennsylvania for his history of abusing women and knocking them unconscious. he is accused of toppling barricades and knocking over an

officer, a woman, of course. do you have any reporting on what the impression is among law enforcement of the effort to rewrite the brutality of that day? >> they're flatout offended by it, nicole, and let's be clear. there are already at least two defendants in the insurrection who are specifically charged with being armed that day, with having firearms on their person while here on capitol hill. so, let's put aside the unarmed or didn't look like an armed insurrection. there are specific allegations, two defendants were armed. now, about the ryan case you just mentioned, very appropriate case to mention because a judge has just ordered him to be detained, held in prison in pennsylvania, not just because of the january 6th case but because of previous violations in pennsylvania. our reporting is that he assaulted, he was convicted of assaulting and knocking unconscious multiple women over the years in addition to that capitol police officer. one of the things that caught our attention, though, nicole, is the judge's order that he stay in prison says he's a

threat to democracy if released. yet another judge, nicole, throwing shade at donald trump and the continued denialism about the november elections. >> that is amazing, frank figliuzzi, and when you look at the reuters reporting from last week about the death threats against election workers, when you look at the phony audits in arizona that have now become like a pilgrimage site for other people who want to attack the election result, what do you make of the fact that judges are now making rulings like with scott's reporting that they're a threat to democracy? >> well, understand that judges see more than just what is made public in a courtroom hearing. they see the evidence that the prosecutors have, and they are able to make these kind of 30,000-foot pronunciations or pronouncements that, look, this is more than just a violent guy.

this guy represents one of many who are a threat to democracy. and i think you're right not to take these just in piecemeal form but to look at the totality of the circumstances, of the adherence, the particularly fringe element of adherence to d what they represent. they represent lying about an outcome of a validly court-approved audited election outcome. they represent violence on january 6th. they represent a notion -- one of the things that's come out just recently in an intelligence community report that's been unclassified, at least in one version, at least 20 of those arrested so far regards january 6th, at least 20 of them are known as qanon adherence based on the language they use on social media or their own concessions. let's remember what qanon believed in, the world is

controlled by cannibalistic pedophiles. these are the kind of people we are talking about. in the totality of circumstances, yes, they represent a threat to democracy. they represent a threat to truth and the rule of law as well. >> scott, i think what we're all saying is they represent a threat to specific individuals whose names could be written on court documents for arguments to keep them in jail. that seems to be happening more and more frequently. >> reporter: my latest reporting is there are 39 u.s. capitol riot defendants in the d.c. jail, and nearly all of them are challenging their pretrial detention, but they're losing that fight. it's either the ongoing threat, or the threats in the past from their criminal histories. >> it's just amazing state of affairs.

scott macfarlane, thank you for spending time with you. when we return, the pressure is building on joe manchin. a rally is underway to protest that senator's positions on voting rights. we'll show it to you next. n voting rights. we'll show it to you next. - oh. - what? rain. cancel and stay? done. go with us and get millions of felixble booking options. expedia. it matters who you travel with. ♪ ♪i've got the brains you've got the looks♪ ♪let's make lots of money♪ ♪you've got the brawn♪ ♪i've got the brains♪ ♪let's make lots of♪ ♪uh uh uh♪ ♪oohhh there's a lot of opportunities♪ with allstate, drivers who switched saved over $700. saving is easy when you're in good hands. allstate click or call to switch today. what happens when we welcome change?

allstate we can make emergency medicine possible at 40,000 feet. instead of burning our past for power, we can harness the energy of the tiny electron. we can create new ways to connect. rethinking how we communicate to be more inclusive than ever. with app, cloud and anywhere workspace solutions, vmware helps companies navigate change. faster. vmware. welcome change. bipolar depression. it's a dark, lonely place. this is art inspired by real stories of people living with bipolar depression. emptiness. a hopeless struggle. the lows of bipolar depression can disrupt your life and be hard to manage. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms, and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. now i'm feeling connected. empowered. latuda is not for everyone. call your doctor

about unusual mood changes, behaviors or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. elderly dementia patients on latuda have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, and confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrollable muscle movements as these may be permanent. these are not all the serious side effects. this is where i want to be. talk to your doctor and ask if latuda could make the difference you've been looking for in your bipolar depression symptoms.

keeping your oysters business growing you've been looking for has you swamped. you need to hire. i need indeed indeed you do. the moment you sponsor a job on indeed you get a shortlist of quality candidates from a resume data base claim your seventy-five-dollar credit when you post your first job at indeed.com/promo this hours something organizer are calling a moral march on manchin. they are marring to his

charleston, west virginia office, to protest his opposition to the for the people act. let's bring in ali vitali. >> we're just at the point they're about to start marching. this is a moral march on joe manchin and hi op position to the for the people act. this is the for the people's campaign. they are making this a moral argument about fighting poverty, about health care, minimum wage. this is a group of people wanting their voice to be heard. just because joe manchin comes from a receipt state doesn't mean that everyone supports what he's doing. of course, some people feel they're between a rock and a hard places.

at the same time this is a stained grass-roots campaign. they're going to washington next week. >> it's amazing. thank you so much, my friend. we have to sneak in a quick break. we will be right back. a quick break. we will be right back. er. it provides exceptional cellular protection from burning uvb rays and aging uva rays. save 25% at neutrogena.com hey lily, i need a new wireless plan for my business, but all my employees need something different. oh, we can help with that. okay, imagine this... your mover, rob, he's on the scene and needs a plan with a mobile hotspot. we cut to downtown, your sales rep lisa has to send some files, asap! so basically i can pick the right plan for each employee... yeah i should've just led with that... with at&t business... you can pick the best plan for each employee and only pay for the features they need. tonight...i'll be eating a falafel wrap with sweet potato fries. (doorbell rings) thanks!

splitsies? ♪ ♪ oooh...you meant the food, didn't you? hearing is important to living life to the fullest. that's why inside every miracle-ear store, you'll find better laughs at family barbecues. you'll find a better life is in store at miracle-ear, when you experience the exclusive miracle-ear advantage. including innovative technology, like the new miracle-earmini. so powerful, yet it's nearly invisible.

we're so confident we can improve your life, we're offering a 30-day risk-free trial. call 1-800-miracle today and experience the miracle-ear advantage.

thank you so much for lets us into your homes during these truly extraordinary times. we're grateful. "the beat with ari melber" starts right now. hi, ari. >> hi, nicolle. welcome to "the beat." we begin with the doj scandal. washington is starting off week where it left off from i, with even more revelations and